Since the Republican influx of 2010, many states across the nation have enacted new voting restrictions, including Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin that will now require a photo ID in order to vote.

Eric Holder’s particular interest in this case stems from the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which mandates South Carolina, as well as Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, to receive federal approval for any changes they make to their voting laws. This is to ensure the new laws will not unduly infringe on minorities’ access to the ballot box–as these states had a “history” of doing, over 47 years ago.

DOJ Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, wrote in a letter to South Carolina officials … “The absolute number of minority citizens whose exercise of the franchise could be adversely affected by the proposed requirements runs into the tens of thousands,” according to a Washington Post article from Friday.

He cited data supplied by the state as showing that there were “81,938 minority citizens who are already registered to vote and who lack” such identification, and that these voters are nearly 20 percent more likely be “disenfranchised” by the change than white voters, according to a Friday New York Times article by Charlie Savage.

Gov. Nikki Haley denounced the decision, accusing the Obama administration of “bullying” the state. “It is outrageous, and we plan to look at every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th Amendment rights,” she said in a statement.

Richard L. Hasen, an election law specialist at the University of California, Irvine, predicted on his Election Law Blog that the state would go to court, which could set up a “momentous” decision in the Supreme Court on whether a part of the Voting Rights Act that prevents states like South Carolina from changing their voting rules without federal permission is unconstitutional.

South Carolina provided data, in its application to the DOJ, comparing its registered voters to those who had an identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, including a demographic breakdown of the 240,000 registered voters who it said did not have such identification.

However, Department of Motor Vehicles executive director Kevin Shwedo, said the state Election Commission knew it was using inaccurate data when it released reports showing nearly 240,000 active and inactive voters lacked driver’s licenses or ID cards … thereby creating “artificially high numbers to excite the masses.”, according to a Friday Associated Press article.

To correct those inaccuracies, Shwedo sent the state’s attorney general an analysis showing that 207,000 of those 240,000 voters now live in other states, allowed their ID cards to expire, probably have licenses with names that didn’t match voter records or were dead.

Even though the South Carolina law also allows several other forms of photographic identification to be used, such as military ID cards or passports, and will provide a state [non-driving] photo ID to any eligible voter for free.

Evidently Greenville, South Carolina native Jesse Jackson didn’t read the ‘photo ID will be provided free‘ part of the law before sharing his thoughts … “[these] laws are like modern day poll taxes, targeting elderly people that can’t afford to get IDs and students.

Unfortunately, Mr. Jackson’s statement lacks any authority or fact, and is in direct conflict with the NYT’s Savage … ‘against the backdrop of the 2008 election–when a huge turnout of young and minority voters helped propel Mr. Obama to victory.

It is supremely asinine to suggest that anyone determined enough to make their way to a voting booth–cannot also be determined enough to procure a free, state issued photo ID.

However, Gov. Haley must now either vacate the “rejected” law, or petition a federal court in the District of Columbia for adjudication–promptly.

In view of the Obama/Holder DOJ’s affirmative action stance against voter fraud prosecutions, especially where minorities are concerned, where they cut loose the indicted New Black Panthers and were totally AWOL on ACORN’s 50+ convicitions–it would seem that petitioning the court with a rock solid case could prove to be the most appropriate course of action in this case.

If you are having trouble understanding Obama’s Iran policy, you are not alone. But for the 3,400 Iranian dissidents living at Camp Ashraf, Obama’s Iran policy is more than confounding, it is a death sentence.

Obama’s Iran policies are leading to a highly preventable holocaust for the residents of Camp Ashraf, located just North of Baghdad in Northern Iraq. The Iranian dissidents living in the camp face imminent attack and a death march to an Iranian prison. Now that the U. S. has ended its active military presence in Iraq, the fate of these unarmed dissidents will be in the hands of the Iraqi government, which wants only to appease its dangerous neighbor to the East.

These dissidents cannot be admitted to the U.S. as refugees because Obama’s State Department insists on labeling them “terrorists.” Meanwhile, the real terrorists running the government in Tehran laugh at our inept attempts to persuade them to abandon their nuclear weapons program.

The State Department’s indifference to the fate of these Iranian dissidents precedes the Obama administration. It is rooted in the State Department’s 30-year courtship of non-existent “moderates” in the Iranian government, the same phantom moderates who have failed to influence the government to abandon the quest for nuclear weapons–and missiles that can deliver those weapons anywhere in the world.

The unarmed Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf, have not had the protection of the U.S. Army since January of 2009, and now, even the potential of U.S. Army intervention will be missing.

The threat of violence against the camp is not hypothetical. Over the past three years, Iranian forces have twice attacked the camp, killing many and wounding hundreds, including women and children. The jihadist mullahs running the totalitarian regime in Iran demand the camp be closed and the dissidents returned to Iran, where they face certain imprisonment, torture and death.

Why are the dissidents not allowed to leave the camp and be welcomed as refugees in the United States? Because our State Department will not remove their parent organization, the M.E.K., from its list of terrorist organizations. The M.E.K. was put on the list as part of a “deal,” a precondition demanded by Iran in order for the U.S. to maintain unofficial but open channels of diplomacy with the mullahs. To put it charitably, the deal has not exactly worked out to U.S, advantage. Yet, the State Department obstinately refuses to admit the mistake or to change its policy toward the M. E. K.

Both the UK and the European Union have dropped the terrorist label for the M. E. K. Recently, a U.S. Court of Appeals heard all the evidence presented by the State Department for the terrorist designation and rejected that determination. The court said, in effect, unless you have better evidence, there is no basis for the continued listing of the M. E. K. as a terrorist group. Thus far, the State Department has ignored the court’s admonition.

Even the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq has criticized the Iraqi treatment of the dissidents at Camp Ashraf and has asked the Iraqi government to “show flexibility” and cooperate with the resettlement of the dissidents in a safe manner. Yet, the government in Baghdad continues to make threats and refuses to guarantee the safety of the camp’s residents—residents who gave up all of their arms in 2003 in exchange for the U.S. promise of protection.

The failure of the US State Department to resolve the Camp Ashraf matter in a humane manner as part of the disengagement agreement with Iraq, borders on criminal negligence. But it is worse than negligence: The neglect of the issue has been a matter of policy.

By sitting on its hands and clinging to the outdated and nonsensical “terrorist” designation for the M. E. K., Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are tacitly signing a death warrant for the 3,400 unarmed civilians–Iranian dissidents who would support democratic reform in Iran if given the opportunity.

This lack of commitment to the safety of the residents of Camp Ashraf is evidence not of incompetence, nor of indifference. It is further evidence of Obama’s policy of appeasement. To make a fuss about these 3,400 refugees might anger the mullahs and hence disrupt our “constructive dialogue.”

There is no doubt that the tyrants in Tehran are laughing at our stupidity. They see no reason to interrupt their plans for the expanded persecution of all dissidents once they have demonstrated to the world the complete impotence of American policy in the region.

The grim truth of the matter is that if the dissidents in Camp Ashraf are allowed to fall into the hands of the Iranian regime, their blood is on our hands. And by “our hands,” I mean not only those of Obama and Clinton and their State Department minions. Their blood will also be on the hands of the U.S. Congress and all leaders who stood by and watched this tragedy unfold

The taste of blood from Camp Ashraf will further embolden the Tehran tyrants, and will bring the next holocaust one step closer to our shores.

It is our distinct honor to now carry the commentaries and reports of Tom Tancredo, former Representative to Congress of the State of Colorado and 2008 candidate for U.S. President. His CongressmanTomTancredo.com regularly features his articles, as does WorldNetDaily.

Former Congressman Tancredo currently serves as chairman of Rocky Mountain Foundation, co-chairman of the anti-illegal immigration Team America PAC, and honorary chairman of Youth for Western Civilization. He speaks frequently on cable news, talk radio, and on college campuses – where his mere presence has led leftists to riot on multiple occasions. His book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security was published in 2006.

My friend Jeremy Hoop is working to raise funds this holiday season for a single working mother with two kids who is fighting breast cancer. Would encourage you to consider supporting Jeremy’s efforts to assist her with the $617,000 cost for her treatments. Here’s the situation.

My wife Wendy and I have a friend, Carrie Ann Kemp, in her early 40s, , who has breast cancer. She’s a single working mother with two kids–recently divorced. She’s uninsurable–she had a stroke years ago and no company will insure her–and is in desperate financial straits. The cost of her chemo is $617,000 for 22 treatments, not including radiation or her surgeries (mastectomy and reconstructive). She’s broke. She had her mastectomies, and her first round of chemo, and had to be to work the next day. She had to use her Christmas money and raise money on Facebook just to meet the minimum payment on her first treatment.

THE MUSIC

I wrote and recorded a Christmas song this year called “How Did We Get Here”, about Mary and Joseph and how they must have felt in the days leading up to the birth of the Christchild. My wife and I decided we’d like to use it this Christmas season to raise money for Carrie Anne. I’ve asked some of my amazing musician friends to join me and Katherine Nelson, Alex Boye, and Aaron Edson have each included wonderful songs.

Now through the end of this year, we are offering these songs for download. You can name your price, and 100% OF THE PROCEEDS WILL GO TO CARRIE ANN TO HELP HER WITH HER MEDICAL BILLS. If you can, please, go to http://music.jeremyhoop.com/ to listen to and download the songs. The music is really beautiful, and with your help, we’ll all be able to do something even more beautiful for Carrie Ann. Thank you so much for taking the time to consider this, and God bless you for what you are able to do to help Carrie Ann!